A PROACTIVE APPROACH TO CURB RE-HOMING IN TEXAS ...

163

ONLINE GARAGE SALES, NOW OFFERING

CHILDREN: A PROACTIVE APPROACH TO CURB

RE-HOMING IN TEXAS

Comment

by Meredith Larson*

I. THE RE-HOMING PRACTICE—AN INTRODUCTION ......................... 164 A. Re-Homing Explained: It’s Exactly As It Seems ....................... 164 B. Adoption Statistics in America .................................................. 166 C. Re-Homing: An Unregulated Market ....................................... 167

II. RE-HOMING AND THE POWER OF GUARDIANSHIP .......................... 168 A. The Power of Attorney: A General Overview ........................... 168 B. Left Without a Legal Guardian ................................................. 169

III. WEAKNESSES IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS ...................................... 170 IV. PROPOSED FEDERAL LEGISLATION ................................................. 171

A. Protecting Adoptive Children Act: The Aims and

Aspirations ................................................................................ 171 B. Congressman Langevin’s Aspirations Will Remain Just

That ........................................................................................... 173 V. STATES RESPOND TO RE-HOMING .................................................. 174

A. Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children................... 174 B. Power of the States .................................................................. 175 C. Existing State Law Analysis ..................................................... 176

1. Wisconsin ........................................................................... 176 2. Arkansas ............................................................................. 177 3. Louisiana ............................................................................ 177 4. Maine.................................................................................. 178 5. Other States ........................................................................ 178

VI. RE-HOMING IN TEXAS ..................................................................... 179 A. A Boy Named Moses ................................................................. 179 B. Current Texas Laws .................................................................. 180 C. If Texas Needs a Reason ........................................................... 181

VII. BOLSTERING LAWS IN TEXAS ......................................................... 183 A. Fixing a Broken System: A Non-Criminal Approach ............... 183 B. Fixing a Broken System: A Criminal Approach ....................... 185

VIII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 188

* This comment is dedicated to my family and friends. Thank you for your unconditional love

and support. Without you, none of this would be possible. I love you.

164 ESTATE PLANNING AND COMMUNITY PROPERTY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 9:163

I. THE RE-HOMING PRACTICE—AN INTRODUCTION

A. Re-Homing Explained: It’s Exactly As It Seems

“‘Born in October of 2000—this handsome boy, ‘Rick’ was placed from

India a year ago and is obedient and eager to please.’”1 This is just one of

the thousands of re-homing advertisements found online.2 However,

handsome, obedient, and eager-to-please, Rick is not a golden retriever in

need of a new home; he’s a young, innocent child.3 What is even more

astonishing is that Rick is not the only child whose own parents have legally

advertised him like a piece of personal property.4

Historically, re-homing is the process associated with pet owners who

are no longer capable or willing to care for their animals.5 This process is

relatively straightforward and simple due to the rise of Internet bulletin

boards, which have increased the ease of transfer and communication.6 Pet

owners post an advertisement on a bulletin that they are seeking a new home

for their pet, they receive a response, and the animal is thereafter re-homed.7

However, the Internet is no longer utilized just to re-home cats and dogs, but

it also serves as a forum for desperate families to seek new homes for their

adopted children as well.8

To say the Internet has changed society is an understatement.9 The

Internet enables people to connect with each other around the world, receive

news, build and maintain relationships, create dialogue, pay bills, and shop

online.10 The Internet also facilitates the unregulated trade of adopted

children.11

Re-homing is now a term used to describe the largely unregulated

private transfer of children who are adopted, frequently from foreign

1. Megan Twohey, Americans Use the Internet to Abandon Children Adopted from Overseas,

REUTERS (Sept. 9, 2013), http://www.reuters.com/investigates/adoption/#article/part1 [https://perma.cc/

CA4U-EM33] [hereinafter Twohey, Americans].

2. See id.

3. See id.

4. See id.

5. See id.

6. See Leslie A. Gordon, States Start to Crack Down on Parents ‘Re-homing’ Their Adopted Kids,

ABA J. (Dec. 1, 2014), http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/states_start_to_crack_down_on_

parents_re_homing_their_adopted_kids/ [https://perma.cc/EHE6-RVWJ].

7. See id.

8. See Twohey, Americans, supra note 1.

9. See Caitlin Dewey, 36 Ways the Web Has Changed Us, THE WASH. POST (Mar. 12, 2014),

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/style-blog/wp/2014/03/12/36-ways-the-web-has-changed-us/

[https://perma.cc/W2K9-R66E].

10. See id.

11. Kelcy Dolan, Langevin, Kilmartin Spotlight Tragedy of ‘Re-homing,’ WARWICK BEACON (May

29, 2014), http://warwickonline.com/stories/Langevin-Kilmartin-spotlight-tragedy-of-re-homing,92966

[https://perma.cc/8VS2-4HAL].

2016] ONLINE GARAGE SALES, NOW OFFERING CHILDREN 165

countries, and whose adoptive parents no longer want them.12 This

phenomenon recently gained attention following a Reuters investigative

series.13 The investigation unveiled that at least eight Internet groups served

as an underground market for shipping adopted children from home to

home.14 This child trade is essentially lawless, and children are often placed

in serious danger because the process does not involve attorneys, social

workers, or government agencies.15 Currently, re-homing does not violate

any federal law, which some lawmakers find stunning.16 Until recently, the

underground child transfer did not violate any state law either; however,

many states have enacted legislation to specifically prohibit re-homing.17

Texas is not one of those states.18

Parents in Texas can legally shuffle their children from home to home

with merely a simple power of attorney, which individuals can easily obtain

through a Google search.19 Transferring children requires less paperwork,

less oversight, and less effort than purchasing a car.20 The government’s

inaction is deplorable, and our state and nation’s laws fail to protect children

from private entrepreneurs who transfer child custody for personal gain.21

This comment will discuss some of the issues associated with re-homing,

including Texas’s failure to pass any proactive legislation and how the

unregulated trade of adopted children will continue to thrive until states enact

laws to protect these children.22

First, this comment will define re-homing and provide the necessary

background into the process and the players involved in order to build an

understanding of the practice.23 Next, it will focus on the ease of transferring

12. Megan Holloway, Re-Homing: A Virtual Black Market for Adoption, BROWN POL. REV. (Nov.

4, 2014), http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2014/11/re-homing-a-virtual-black-market-for-adoption/

[https://perma.cc/N3YF-443V].

13. See Dolan, supra note 11.

14. Twohey, Americans, supra note 1.

15. See id.

16. Megan Twohey, Wisconsin Passes Law to Curb Private Custody Transfers of Children,

REUTERS (Apr. 16, 2014), http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/16/us-wisconsin-adoption-idUSBREA

3F1VS20140416 [https://perma.cc/7C8E-BZU4] [hereinafter Twohey, Wisconsin].

17. Id.

18. Id.

19. See Beverly Bird, Non-Durable Power of Attorney for Temporary Custody in Texas,

LEGALZOOM, http://info.legalzoom.com/nondurable-power-attorney-temporary-custody-texas-20599.

html [https://perma.cc/W8H5-HVUA] (last visited Sept. 9, 2015).

20. See Cheryl Wetzstein, Adoptees Decry Re-homing as States Move to End Practice, THE WASH.

TIMES (May 25, 2015), http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/25/adoptees-decry-re-homing-

as-states-move-to-end-pra/?page=all [https://perma.cc/NK5X-5D6B] [hereinafter Wetzstein, Adoptees

Decry].

21. Mirah Riben, U.S. GOA Report on Adoption Rehoming, HUFF POST PARENTS: THE BLOG (Sept.

21, 2015), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mirah-riben/us-goa-report-on-adoption_b_8156396.html

[https://perma.cc/28UV-BLCT].

22. Michelle Lillie, Rehoming Adopted Children, HUMAN TRAFFICKING SEARCH (Oct. 18, 2013),

http://humantraffickingsearch.net/wp/rehoming-adopted-children/ [https://perma.cc/MUG-QW4Z].

23. See infra Section I.C.


custody through a simple power of attorney and the guardianship

implications this creates.24 Then, this comment will explain the weaknesses

in the adoption process that lead parents to re-home their child.25 Next, it

will delve into the proposed federal legislation known as the Protecting

Adoptive Children Act, as well as why this proposed act will likely fail.26

After discussing the lack of federal legislation, this comment will address the

need for a state-by-state approach to specifically combat re-homing, as well

as identify states that already have legislation in place.27 Lastly, this

comment will identify instances of re-homing in Texas, as well as the state’s

failure to respond legislatively.28 The assertions in this comment will

hopefully bring awareness to the public and legislators, and it will call for

more stringent laws in Texas to specifically prohibit re-homing and protect

our state’s children.29

B. Adoption Statistics in America

Since the late 1990’s, Americans have brought more than 243,000

foreign-born children into the United States through international adoption.30

According to the State Department’s Intercountry Adoption Office,

Americans adopted approximately 6,441 foreign-born children in 2014

alone.31 However, the number of adoptable children is declining because

countries like China and Guatemala are imposing more stringent rules or

closing their international adoption programs altogether.32 As a result of

these restrictions, more Americans are adopting older and disabled children,

which are more challenging and increase the likelihood for adoption

dissolution.33

Adoption dissolution occurs when an adoption is terminated after

finalization.34 The proper procedure for adoption dissolution requires parents

24. See infra Part II.

25. See infra Part III.

26. See infra Part IV.

27. See infra Part V.

28. See infra Part VI.

29. See infra Part VII.


31. Cheryl Wetzstein, James Langevin pushes legislation to curb ‘rehoming’ of adopted

children, THE WASH. TIMES (Aug. 4, 2015), http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/4/rep-

james-langevin-pushes-legislation-to-curb-reho/?page=all [https://perma.cc/W7VM-5JNX] [hereinafter

Wetzstein, James Langevin].

32. Emily Matchar, Broken Adoptions: When Parents “Re-Home” Adopted Children, TIME (Sept.

20, 2013), http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/20/broken-adoptions-when-parents-re-home-adopted-children/

[https://perma.cc/W777-U9CK].

33. Id.

34. Jill VanderZiel, Free to a Good Home: Re-homing Adoptive Children, LEGAL SOLS. BLOG (Dec.

22, 2014), http://blog.legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/legal-research/free-good-home-re-homing-

adoptive-children/ [https://perma.cc/VEA8-L4UY].


to place the child in the state or adoption agency’s custody.35 A child who is

placed in the state’s custody then enters the foster system.36 Nationally, 1%–

5% of adoptions are dissolved.37 If an adoption is terminated prior to

finalization it is known as a disrupted adoption.38 The national rate for

disrupted adoption is 10%–20%.39

However, the statistics for the disruption and dissolution of foreign

adoptions, specifically, are not as precise.40 The estimated rate for failed

foreign adoptions is 10%–25%.41 Based on this estimated rate,

approximately 24,000 foreign-adopted children may no longer live with the

parents who originally adopted them and brought them to this country.42 In

reality though, the actual rate is likely higher because foreign adoptions

frequently involve older children who are more likely to have an attachment

disorder, which increases the probability of a failed adoption.43 Children

with attachment disorders often display numerous negative behaviors, such

as withholding affection, destructiveness, or a lack of apparent remorse.44

This long-term psychiatric condition occurs when a child does not have the

opportunity to bond with a stable caregiver as a young child living in an

orphanage or a foster care setting.45

When difficulties like attachment disorders arise, the Internet provides

a way for parents to circumvent the traditional method to dissolve and disrupt

a failed adoption.46 The Internet makes the national rate for adoption

dissolution and disruption even less reliable because the statistics do not

account for children who are re-homed.47

C. Re-Homing: An Unregulated Market

Re-homing is a term used to describe the largely unregulated private

transfer of children who are adopted, frequently from foreign countries, and

whose adoptive parents no longer want them.48 On a single Internet bulletin

board, approximately 70% of the children advertised for re-homing were

35. Holloway, supra note 12.

36. Id.

37. VanderZiel, supra note 34.

38. Id.

39. Id.


41. Id.

42. Id.

43. Id.

44. Brenda McCreight, Attachment Disorder and the Adoptive Family, THE ADOPTION COUNSELOR

1, 3–5 http://davethomasfoundation.org/WP-content/uploads/2015/03/Attachment-pamphlet.pdf [https://

perma.cc/NXU4-XRBL] (last visited Oct. 20, 2015).

45. Id.


47. VanderZiel, supra note 34.



foreign-born.49 Frequently, parents who resort to re-homing have grown to

regret the adoption, which typically stems from their child’s behavioral or

mental health issues.50 Parents then turn to the Internet for answers, and

instead, they find a forum to facilitate transferring their child to someone

else.51 The Reuters investigation identified as many as eight Internet bulletin

boards that served as meeting grounds for parents, middlemen, and

prospective new homes.52

These private custody transfers rarely involve an attorney, social

worker, or any kind of government agent; therefore, re-homing is essentially

a lawless network.53 At most, the parents will obtain a notarized power of

attorney to effectuate the transfer.54 Essentially, re-homing is an easy, legal

way for adoptive parents to rid themselves of a child who they now consider

a burden.55

II. RE-HOMING AND THE POWER OF GUARDIANSHIP

A. The Power of Attorney: A General Overview

The power of attorney (POA) is a notarized statement granting an adult,

other than the child’s parents, the responsibility of caring for the child.56 This

device offers flexibility, and in certain situations, the ease of transfer is

beneficial because it allows a child to stay with a trusted relative during hard

times.57 The power of attorney authorizes an individual to make significant

decisions for the child, including medical care, school enrollment, and

participation in certain activities.58 The authority to make such decisions

gives the impression that the custody change was performed within the child

welfare system rather than over the Internet.59

In Texas, childcare power of attorney forms are easily accessed because

a number of state and private websites readily provide them.60 Granting

power of attorney only requires that the grantor sign the documents in the

49. Id.

50. See Megan Twohey, About the Series, REUTERS, http://www.reuters.com/investigates/adoption

/#article/about [https://perma.cc/V7CU-U2KR] (last visited Sept. 10, 2015).

51. See id.

52. Id.


54. See id.

55. Le Trinh, Can Parents Re-Home an Adopted Child?, FINDLAW (July 16, 2015), http://blogs.

findlaw.com/law_and_life/2015/07/can-parents-re-home-an-adopted-child.html [https://perma.cc/P5U2-

TC8C].


57. Id.

58. Texas Power of Attorney for Childcare Law, U.S. LEGAL FORMS, http://www.uslegal

forms.com/lawsum/?l=5199 [https://perma.cc/L7LD-SQ2Q] (last visited Feb. 4, 2016).


60. Bird, supra note 19.


presence of a notary.61 The recipient of the notarized power of attorney does

not have to file the device anywhere; merely giving the form to the “agent”

is sufficient.62 Furthermore, executing a power of attorney does not require

much effort.63 The simplicity of these forms makes the task as easy as filling

in blank spaces.64 Children are shuffled from home to home with the

functional equivalent of a receipt.65

The rise of the Internet and the accessibility of power of attorney forms

provide a way for parents to circumvent legal oversight through re-homing.66

The re-homing process is generally conducted without any background

checks, let alone the vetting normally required during the legal adoption

process.67 As a result, children are often placed in complete strangers’ hands

in which the child may endure extreme circumstances, including severe

emotional and physical abuse.68

B. Left Without a Legal Guardian

In one instance, a young girl named Inga was re-homed three times via

the Internet, and she endured abuse, neglect, and sexual assault all within two

short years after her adoption from Russia.69 After Inga was re-homed

through a power of attorney, she was ultimately left without a legal

guardian.70 She eventually became a ward of the state because her adoptive

parents refused to take her back, and the subsequent families provided an

unsuitable home life.71 The repercussions are severe, and in some cases,

children who become a ward of the state face deportation if neither their

parents nor any of their subsequent caretakers completed United States

naturalization papers.72

The purpose of a power of attorney is to only delegate temporary

responsibility for a child.73 It is neither intended to act as a substitute for

long-term parental care, nor does it remove parents’ legal responsibility to

assure a child is safe.74 Typically, no state or federal agency regulates a

61. Id.

62. Id.

63. See id.

64. See id.


66. See id.

67. See id.

68. See id.


70. Id.

71. Id.

72. See Wetzstein, Adoptee Decry, supra note 20.

73. See Memorandum from JooYeun Chang & Mark Greenberg to State Agencies Administering or

Supervising the Administration of Title IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act 1, 2 (May 30, 2014),

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/im1402.pdf [https://perma.cc/T9SL-AXDT] [hereinafter

Chang & Greenberg].

74. See id.


power of attorney, thus a child’s whereabouts may be completely unknown.75

Parents who grant power of attorney to a complete stranger are often

desperate, and they feel that they have nowhere to turn because of the lack of

pre- and post-adoption support.76

III. WEAKNESSES IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS

Among other things, the lack of preparation and support are contributing

factors to failed adoptions.77 Parents may receive insufficient information

about the health and wellbeing of their child, and they may be ill prepared to

meet their child’s specific needs to ensure a successful transition.78 While

states are individually responsible for setting training requirements for foster

care adoptions, the State Department regulates training for international

adoptions.79 Federal government regulations require only ten hours of

training for international adoptions, but states are free to impose additional

training requirements as they see fit.80 In Wisconsin, for example, the state

requires eighteen training hours, and the sessions cover topics such as

attachment, cultural sensitivity, and the effects of abuse and neglect.81

Additional education is also required if the potential parents are

adopting from a country that is a member of the Hague Convention on the

Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption

(Hague Convention).82 The Hague Convention is an international agreement

that strives to safeguard and regulate international adoption through uniform

standards of practice.83 Adopting from a Hague Convention country requires

that the potential parents take ten hours of parent education, in addition to the

federally required ten hours.84 However, if the international adoption is

taking place in a non-Hague Convention country, additional parent education

is only mandatory if the state or adoption agency so requires.85

75. Congressional Report, Steps Have Been Taken to Address Unregulated Custody Transfers of

Adopted Children, U.S. GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 1, 6 (Sept. 2015), http://www.gao.gov/assets/

680/672575.pdf [https://perma.cc/N9B9-G83D].

76. See infra Part III.

77. Congressional Report, supra note 75, at 16.

78. Id.

79. Id. at 17.

80. Id. at 18.

81. Id.

82. See Hague vs Non-Hague Adoption Process, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS-U.S. DEP’T

OF STATE, http://travel.state.gov/content/adoptionsabroad/en/hague-convention/hague-vs-non-hague-

adoption-process.html [https://perma.cc/S53L-ZZVT] [hereinafter Hague vs Non-Hague] (last visited

Sept. 23, 2015).

83. Understanding the Hague Convention, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS-U.S. DEP’T OF

STATE, https://travel.state.gov/content/adoptionsabroad/en/hague-convention/understanding-the-hague-

convention.html [https://perma.cc/N8GV-MT73] (last visited Jan. 18, 2016).

84. Hague vs Non-Hague, supra note 82.

85. Id.


Many officials are concerned that even if parents receive pre-adoption

education, they resort to re-homing because the post-adoption support

services are inadequate.86 In 2014, the Donaldson Adoption Institute

surveyed forty-nine states, and it found that approximately one-third of the

states offered little-to-no post-adoption assistance beyond offering a subsidy

to families.87

Recently, the United States Government Office of Accountability

(GAO) released a report regarding re-homing.88 According to the report, in

a sample of seven selected states, each claimed they provide some form of

post-adoption services.89 For example, Wisconsin now provides a 24-hour

hotline, referral services, and connects families with support groups.90 Other

states offer parents library resources, newspapers, and brochures; however,

none of the seven sample states provided extensive services to adoptive

families.91 Some states offer these services exclusively to families who adopt

from the state’s foster care system.92 The states mainly attribute the lack of

post-adoption services to the high cost of offering these services, which the

GAO estimates can add up to thousands of dollars per month to support a

single child in a residential setting.93

IV. PROPOSED FEDERAL LEGISLATION

A. Protecting Adoptive Children Act: The Aims and Aspirations

The media coverage of re-homing grabbed at least a few lawmakers’

attention.94 In response to re-homing, Congressman James Langevin, a

Democratic representative from Rhode Island, proposed federal legislation

H.R. 2068, also known as Protecting Adopted Children Act.95 If enacted, the

bill would address weaknesses throughout the entire adoption process.96 The

proposed legislation calls for expanding definitions to specifically include

re-homing, delegating responsibility for re-homing cases to the Internet


87. Id. at 22.

88. Id. at 1.

89. Id. at 21.

90. Id.

91. Id.

92. Id. at 20

93. Id. at 23.

94. See Stefano Montanari, Federal Protecting Adopted Children Act to Curb “Re-Homing,” THE

DONALDSON ADOPTION INST. (May 1, 2015), http://adoptioninstitute.org/news/federal-protecting-

adopted-children-act-to-curb-re-homing/ [https://perma.cc/NVE2-AQGK] [hereinafter Montanari,

Protecting Adopted Children].

95. See H.R. 2068: To ensure the safety and well-being of adopted children, GOVTRACK.US,

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr2068 [https://perma.cc/QC94-LGKS] (last visited Sept. 8,

2015).

96. See Montanari, Protecting Adopted Children, supra note 94.


Crimes Against Children Task Force (ICAC), and strengthening pre- and

post-adoption services for parents and children.97

One of Congressman Langevin’s goals includes defining re-homing as

a form of exploitation.98 Exploitation, as it is currently defined in the Protect

Our Children Act of 2008, does not include re-homing.99 However, if enacted

the Protecting Adopted Children Act would expand exploitation’s current

definition to specifically include re-homing.100 Further, Congressman

Langevin’s proposed bill delegates the responsibility of regulating and

reacting to instances of re-homing to the ICAC.101 The ICAC is a network of

law enforcers at the local, state, and national levels who are responsible for

responding to Internet child enticement and pornography cases.102

Additionally, the Protecting Adopted Children Act would target pre-

and post-adoption issues that ultimately result in private re-homing or placing

the child in foster care.103 The bill would provide adoptive parents with

access to peer-to-peer mentor groups, support groups, and a 24-hour

emergency hotline.104 Funding would also provide adopted children with

pre- and post-adoptive counseling, including social skills training,

recreational therapy, outpatient mental health services, and substance abuse

treatment.105 The proposed legislation requires states to provide these

services until the child is twenty-one years old, and each state must collect

and analyze data to evaluate the effectiveness of these services.106

Congressman Langevin stated in an email: “We need to find a solution that

includes law enforcement but also addresses the root causes behind why

adoptive parents could feel so desperate that they would re-home an innocent

child into the custody of strangers.”107

Overall, the congressman’s legislation aims to provide a more stable

home environment for adopted children.108 Congressman Langevin

recognizes that “[a]ll children deserve a loving home,” but unfortunately

97. See id.

98. See id.

99. Id. “The term ‘child exploitation’ means any conduct, attempted conduct, or conspiracy to

engage in conduct involving a minor that violates section 1591, chapter 109A, chapter 110, and chapter

117 of title 18 or any sexual activity involving a minor for which any person can be charged with a criminal

offense.” 42 U.S.C. § 17601(1) (West 2014).

100. Montanari, supra note 94. H.R. 2068 would amend the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 by

inserting the phrase, “‘or the offer to engage or engaging in the transfer of permanent custody or control

of a minor in contravention of a required legal procedure.’” H.R. 2068, supra note 95.

101. Montanari, supra note 94.

102. Id.

103. Id.

104. See Langevin Introduces Bill to Protect Adopted Children, CONGRESSMAN JIM LANGEVIN (Oct.

30, 2013), http://langevin.house.gov/press-release/langevin-introduces-bill-protect-adopted-children

[https://perma.cc/8NHA-YD2M] [hereinafter CONGRESSMAN JIM LANGEVIN] .

105. Montanari, Protecting Adopted Children, supra note 94.

106. Id.

107. Id.

108. See CONGRESSMAN JIM LANGEVIN, supra note 104.


children of adoption do not always get their happy ending.109 The fact that

families are oftentimes ill-equipped and unprepared to care for a child gives

rise to the need to have “safe mechanisms in place through which an adopted

child can be transitioned into a more stable environment,” Langevin said.110

B. Congressman Langevin’s Aspirations Will Remain Just That

Despite the media coverage and a few legislators’ valiant effort, this

proposed federal legislation will probably fail.111 Currently, 11,644 bills and

resolutions are before the United States Congress, and only 4% of those will

become enacted law.112 Unfortunately, the Protecting Adopted Children Act,

or H.R. 2068, will likely not make the cut.113 The Act was assigned to a

congressional committee on April 28, 2015, and as of November 3, 2016,

there is a 1% chance that Congress will enact the bill.114

The Protecting Adopted Children Act is not the first proposed federal

legislation to address re-homing.115 Previous versions of this bill, which were

introduced in September and October 2013, failed to move past the

committee stage during the 2013–2015 congressional session.116

Congressman Langevin attributes the previous bills’ failure to an overall

unawareness of the re-homing practice.117 Despite the unsuccessful track

record, Congressman Langevin appears hopeful that this bill will receive

greater support due to the increased media coverage of re-homing.118 “There

is a growing awareness of this problem . . . and I feel confident that when

people learn about re-homing and some of the atrocities that have taken place

because of this illegal practice, they will understand the critical need for

action,” Langevin said.119

Some professionals believe that federal action is the answer and that

state-by-state solutions are insufficient because children are predominately

re-homed across state lines, making re-homing an interstate issue.120

However, the federal government is failing to take action against private

entrepreneurs who are trading children for personal gain and it is failing to

109. Id.

110. Id.

111. See H.R. 2068, supra note 95.

112. Bills and Resolutions, GOVTRACK.US, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/ [https://perma.

cc/NEA4-HHCE] (last visited Sept. 9, 2015).

113. See H.R. 2068, supra note 95.

114. Id.

115. Montanari, Protecting Adopted Children, supra note 94.

116. Id.

117. See id.

118. Id.

119. Id.

120. Megan Twohey, ‘Re-homing’ to be topic of U.S. Senate Hearing, REUTERS (July 7, 2014),

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/07/us-usa-adoption-hearing-idUSKBN0FC1MA20140707

[https://perma.cc/7EFV-USDU].


protect our nation’s youth.121 Although federal legislation may be more

efficient, children’s issues are not a top priority for federal lawmakers, and

therefore, a state-by-state approach is necessary.122 According to Barbara

Babb, University of Baltimore law professor and director of the Sayra and

Neil Meyerhoff Center for Families, Children, and the Courts, “[t]his requires

urgent attention, but children and families are at the bottom of the totem pole

in policymaking.”123

V. STATES RESPOND TO RE-HOMING

A. Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children

Although there is not currently any federal legislation, the Interstate

Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) is an agreement between all

fifty states, Washington D.C., and the Virgin Islands that regulates

transferring children across state lines.124 Although the ICPC is codified, it

is not strictly followed or enforced.125 The ICPC’s primary regulation

requires that a parent who wants to transfer a child across state lines to live

with non-relatives must notify authorities in both states prior to the

transfer.126 Individuals do not frequently adhere to this ICPC requirement

because it is not common knowledge, and it rarely results in prosecution.127

Additionally, the consequences for violating the ICPC are non-uniform

because each state determines its own punishment.128 If ICPC violators are

even discovered, at most the state may remove the child from the new home,

but neither party in the transaction faces punishment.129 “Unfortunately, the

compact is often ignored and the language of the compact appears to limit

itself to the application of children who are placed for adoption,” said David

Phillips, a prosecuting attorney in Ohio.130 Parents can deem the transfer as

respite care, rather than adoption, and effectively circumvent the ICPC rules

on a mere technicality.131

121. See Riben, supra note 21.

122. See Gordon, supra note 6.

123. Id.


125. See id.

126. See id.

127. See Megan Twohey, Despite ‘grave danger,’ government allows Internet forums to go

unchecked, REUTERS (Sept. 10, 2013), http://www.reuters.com/investigates/adoption/#article/part4

[https://perma.cc/92QF-T8GJ] [hereinafter Twohey, Despite ‘grave danger’].


129. See id.

130. Tiffany L. Parks, Bill Designed to Thwart ‘Child Trading,’ AKRON LEGAL NEWS (Oct. 28,

2014), http://www.akronlegalnews.com/editorial/11457 [https://perma.cc/QZ2M-Z9LF].

131. Id. “Respite care provides and parents and other caregivers with short or long-term child care

services that offer temporary relief. . .” Respite Care Resources, CHILDREN OF ALL NATIONS,

http://adoptiondissolutionsupport.org/tag/rehoming/ [https://perma.cc/4B7M-GL6F] (last visited Jan. 20,

2016).


A variety of existing state laws relate to re-homing, such as prohibiting

unlicensed individuals from facilitating adoptions or advertising children for

adoption.132 However, many states do not have any restrictions in place for

transferring child custody, and a uniform federal law currently does not

exist.133 In the absence of a federal law, legislators at the state level are

drafting and enacting legislation to specifically address and combat re-

homing.134

B. Power of the States

To a large extent, states have the power to regulate the adoptive process

and adoption transfers.135 Additionally, states chiefly govern a number of

other related legal issues, including: child abuse, child neglect, guardianship,

and the power of attorney.136 The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act

(CAPTA) requires that states have provisions and procedures in place to

respond to child abuse and neglect reports.137 CAPTA also defines child

abuse and neglect.138 However, it is up to the states individually to determine

the actions that fall within those definitions, and therefore, qualify as child

abuse, neglect, abandonment, or exploitation.139

Currently, CAPTA’s abuse and neglect definitions are broad enough to

include re-homing.140 Implementing a uniform national law to address re-

homing is not necessary because states have the power to determine that re-

homing qualifies as child abuse or neglect.141 Rather, it is the states’

responsibility to enforce criminal and dependency laws.142 Individuals who

132. See Megan Twohey, U.S. Lawmakers Call for Action to Curb Internet Child Trading,

REUTERS (Oct. 29, 2013), http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/29/us-adoption-react-idUSBRE99S1A

320131029 [https://perma.cc/3LBE-A3VX].

133. See id.

134. See id.

135. Marianne Levine, Advocates for Adopted Children Decry ‘Private re-homing,’ L.A. TIMES (July

8, 2014), http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-senate-adoption-transfers-20140709-story.html [https://

perma.cc/P8FR-EQNR].

136. Testimony from Joo Yeun Chang on Child Trafficking and Private Re-homing Before the

Subcomm. on Children and Families, Comm. on Health Education, Labor and Pensions, 113th

Cong. (2014), http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/olab/resource/testimony-from-joo-yeun-chang-on-child

-trafficking-and-private-re-homing [https://perma.cc/T9SL-AXDT] [hereinafter Testimony] (regarding

the testimony of Joo Yeun Chang, Associate Commissioner, The Children’s Bureau).

137. Id.

138. Id.

139. Id.

140. Stefano Montanari, As Arkansas Outlaws Rehoming, Other States Might Follow Suit, THE

DONALDSON ADOPTION INST. (Apr. 15, 2015), http://adoptioninstitute.org/news/as-arkansa-outlaws-

rehoming-other-states-might-follow-suit/ [https://perma.cc/7GBX-YCZ9] [hereinafter Montanari,

Arkansas].

141. See id.

142. Id.


oppose private re-homing hope that legislative efforts at the state level will

encourage and motivate federal lawmakers to reform adoption laws.143

State laws do exist to regulate property and pet transfers, however very

few states regulate child transfers.144 “We owe it to the kids to have the same

standards as cars, boats, and dogs,” said Maureen Flatley, a child welfare

expert.145 Some states are implementing those standards and safeguards in

response to the Reuters investigation.146 At this time, at least fifteen states

have taken some steps to address re-homing.147 A handful of states have

tightened restrictions on advertising children and transferring custody.148

However, only seven of those states have passed laws to criminalize

re-homing.149

C. Existing State Law Analysis

1. Wisconsin

In 2014, Wisconsin lead the way and became the first state to

specifically respond to the re-homing practice.150 Wisconsin lawmakers

recognized the massive legal pitfalls identified in the Reuters report.151 “With

virtually no oversight, children could literally be traded from home to home.

In Wisconsin, that is now against the law. Hopefully citizens of the country

will follow our lead,” Republican State Representative Joel Kleefisch said.152

The law in Wisconsin prohibits an unlicensed individual from

advertising a child for adoption or any other form of custody transfer online

or in print.153 The re-homing law also requires a judicial grant for a parent to

transfer custody of a child to a non-relative if the custody is to last longer

than one year.154 Violators face up to nine months in jail, up to $10,000 in

fines, or both.155

143. See Tiffany Chan, Adoptive Parents Use the Internet to Re-home Children From Overseas, 22

NEWS WWLP.COM (June 2, 2015), http://wwlp.com/2015/06/02/adoptive-parents-use-the-internet-to-re-

home-children-from-overseas/ [https://perma.cc/Y28H-YNPB].

144. See Wetzstein, James Langevin, supra note 31.

145. Id.

146. Levine, supra note 135.

147. Wetzstein, James Langevin, supra note 31.

148. Levine, supra note 135.

149. Wetzstein, supra note 31.

150. Twohey, Wisconsin, supra note 16.

151. Id.

152. Id.

153. Id.

154. Id.

155. Id.


2. Arkansas

In Arkansas, the prohibition on re-homing hit a little closer to

home.156 The law followed a revelation that an Arkansas lawmaker re-homed

his two young, adopted daughters, and thereafter, one child was sexually

abused in the new home.157 Now in Arkansas, parents are forbidden from

transferring custody of an adopted child to a non-relative without court

approval.158 Violating this law is a felony offense.159

The Arkansas statute specifically targets and criminalizes re-homing an

adopted minor.160 The statute takes a comprehensive approach to address all

roles of the re-homing practice and includes soliciting, obtaining, providing,

transporting, recruiting, harboring, transferring, or advertising a minor for

placement.161 A violation of this law is an unclassified felony, and it carries

punishment of up to five years in jail and a fine up to $5,000.162

3. Louisiana

During the 2014 Regular Session, Louisiana enacted a law prohibiting

the private custody transfer of adopted children to non-relatives.163 Court

approval is now required for individuals to divest their permanent parental

responsibility to a non-relative.164 Section 14.46.4 of the Louisiana Revised

Statute explicitly defines re-homing to include parents, individuals, or

entities who participate directly in such a transaction or facilitate such a

transaction, either online or through other means.165 Any person, who

transports, provides, obtains, solicits, conspires, or assists in any way to re-

home a child faces fines up to $5,000 and imprisonment at hard labor for up

to five years.166

The Louisiana law also explicitly outlines actions that do not constitute

re-homing.167 This qualifier allows parents to place children with relatives,

relinquish their child under the safe haven law, or place a child temporarily

156. See Steve Barnes, Arkansas governor signs adoption law banning ‘re-homing’, REUTERS

(Apr. 7, 2015), http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/07/us-usa-arkansas-adoption-idUSKBN0MY00R

20150407 [https://perma.cc/HTL3-KK4W].

157. Id.

158. Id.

159. Id.

160. See ARK. CODE ANN. § 5-27-211 (West 2014).

161. See id.

162. See id.

163. Julie Deisher-Edwards, Louisiana governor signs law prohibiting non-legalized re-adoption of

children, JURIST (June 22, 2014), http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/06/louisiana-governor-signs-law-

prohibiting-non-legalized-re-adoption-of-unwanted-children.php [https://perma.cc/V83E-SZSC].

164. Id.

165. LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 14:46.4(A) (West 2014).

166. Id.; § 14:46.4(C).

167. See § 14:46.4(B).


in another home due to circumstances like military service or medical

treatment without facing criminal penalties.168 This portion of the statute also

protects licensed attorneys, adoption agencies, and the Department of

Children and Family Services, who may all legally place a child in another

home.169

4. Maine

As of June 2015, re-homing is illegal in Maine.170 Despite the

governor’s veto, the legislature unanimously voted to override the veto and

enact the proposed legislation.171 The bill summary states that it creates a

new crime to address the re-homing practice, and like other states, Maine law

prohibits transferring custody and long-term care to a non-relative without

court authorization.172 Further, it requires teachers and medical professionals

to report to child services if they suspect a child is no longer living with the

child’s family and is possibly a victim of re-homing.173 Individuals who

participate in re-homing face the existing penalties for abandonment, which

range from a Class C crime to a Class D crime, depending on the child’s

age.174

5. Other States

North Carolina, Maryland, and Virginia have also introduced bills in

response to re-homing.175 In March 2015, North Carolina legislators

168. Id.

169. Id.

170. Craig Hickman, Hickman’s bill to prohibit “rehoming” of adopted children becomes law,

HICKMAN IN THE HOUSE (July 2, 2015), http://hickmaninthehouse.blogspot.com/2015_07_01_

archive.html [https://perma.cc/7NZA-GYES].

171. Id.

172. 2015 Maine House Paper No. 911, Maine 127th Legislature – First Regular Session.


174. Hickman, supra note 170. “The person leaves the child who is less than 14 years of age in a

place with the intent to abandon the child. . .is a Class D crime; The person leaves the child who is less

than 6 years of age in a place with the intent to abandon the child. . .is a Class C crime.” ME. REV. STAT.

ANN. tit. 17-a, § 533(1)(A)–(B) (2015); “The court shall set the term of imprisonment. . .[i]n the case of

a Class C crime, the court shall set a definite period not to exceed 5 years.” Id. at § 1252(2)(C). An

individual who commits a Class C crime may also be fined up to $5,000.00. Id. at § 1301(1-A)(C). “The

court shall set the term of imprisonment. . .[i]n the case of a Class D crime, the court shall set a definite

period of less than one year.” Id. at § 1252(2)(D). Individuals who commit a Class D crime may be fined

up to $2,000.00. Id. at § 1301(1-A)(D).

175. S.B. 652, 2015 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2015). S.B. 208, 435th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess.

(Md. 2015); Dr. Diane B. Kunz, Synopsis of State Laws Regarding the Practice of Private Re-Homing,

CTR. FOR ADOPTION POLICY, Sept. 18, 2014, http://www.adoptionpolicy.org/pdf/10-4-14%20Center%

20for%20Adoption%20Policy%20Rehoming%20Research%20Synposis%20State.pdf [https://perma.cc

/5B27-ESSM].


introduced a bill that if enacted, classifies re-homing as a felony.176 The bill

defines re-homing as permanently transferring custody of an adopted child

without a court order.177 The law would also outlaw soliciting or responding

to an advertisement to facilitate a re-homing transaction.178

In February 2015, Maryland lawmakers introduced a bill that if passed

will create criminal consequences for a number of parties involved in the

re-homing practice.179 Maryland lawmakers want to prohibit advertising,

soliciting, harboring, transporting, recruiting, and receiving a child for

re-homing.180 Any individuals who violate this comprehensive proposed

legislation commit a felony and face punishment of up to five years in jail, a

fine up to $10,000, or both.181

In 2014, a Virginian senator introduced a re-homing bill.182 The

proposed legislation prohibited transferring child custody through a power of

attorney, or any similar device, without going through the state’s adoption

process.183 However, following a review, a senate committee called for

further study regarding re-homing and adoption law prior to making

suggestions to the General Assembly.184

VI. RE-HOMING IN TEXAS

A. A Boy Named Moses

Texas is not immune to the re-homing phenomenon.185 In 2006, Ian and

Carol Johnson, a Canadian couple, re-homed their five-year-old, Liberian-

born son to a Houston woman who they found online but never met in

person.186 The Texas woman contacted the Johnsons shortly after Carol

posted an advertisement in an online forum for adoptions gone

wrong.187 After a few months of email communications, the Johnsons’

concerns, if any, were dispelled—they found their solution—and sent Moses

on a plane to Houston.188 Moses had concerns of his own: “. . .I was

176. S.B. 652, 2015 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2015)

177. Id.

178. Id.

179. S. B. 208, 2015 435th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Md. 2015).

180. Id.

181. Id.

182. Kunz, supra note 175, at 2.

183. Id.

184. Id.

185. See Allya Davidson & Julia Whalen, Online adoption ‘rehoming’: Legal loopholes allow

children to be given away, CBC NEWS (Nov. 13, 2014), http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/online-adoption-

rehoming-legal-loopholes-allow-children-to-be-given-away-1.2833796 [https://perma.cc/JYT4-YL3V].

186. See id.

187. See id.

188. See id.


scared. . .I wasn’t going to have a family.”189 Unfortunately for Moses, Texas

offers very little protection for children in his situation.190

B. Current Texas Laws

While Texas is a member state of the ICPC, the ICPC requirements are

rarely enforced and easily circumvented.191 The agreement allows each state

to determine the consequences of violating the ICPC, and in Texas, ICPC

violators commit a Class B misdemeanor.192 A Class B misdemeanor carries

punishment of a fine not to exceed $2,000, imprisonment not to exceed 180

days, or both.193 Further, if the offender holds any licenses from the

Department of Family and Protective Services or any license or certification

as an individual, agency, or corporation to practice in Texas, the court will

revoke such license or certification upon conviction.194 However, these

consequences are rarely enforced because parents deem the transfer as respite

care rather than an adoption, and they effectively circumvent the ICPC’s

requirements and repercussion.195 Additionally, the ICPC only imposes

restrictions if a child is transferred across state lines, thus there is nothing to

protect a child who is re-homed within Texas’s borders.196

Additionally, Texas prohibits individuals from advertising to place or

obtain a child for adoption in the public media, which includes the Internet.197

First-time offenders commit a Class A misdemeanor, which carries fines not

to exceed $4,000.00, up to one year in jail, or both.198 If the individual has a

previous conviction for this crime, the violation increases to a third-degree

felony.199

Although Texas prohibits advertising a child for adoption, this law is

confusing and rarely results in criminal repercussions.200 For instance, in

2013, a Houston mother faced misdemeanor charges after she posted an

advertisement on Craigslist placing her three-year-old biological son for

adoption.201 However, she was released from jail the next day after she

189. See id.

190. See infra Section VI.B.

191. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 162.102 (West).

192. Id. § 162.107.

193. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.22 (West).

194. FAM. § 162.107.

195. Parks, supra note 130.

196. Ann Wrixon, Rehoming Adoption, and How to Fix It, INDEP. ADOPTION CTR. (Sept. 12, 2013),

http://www.adoptionhelp.org/blog/2013/rehoming-adoption-and-how-to-fix-it/ [https://perma.cc/PG3L-

59ZM].

197. PENAL § 25.09.

198. Id.; PENAL § 12.21.

199. PENAL § 25.09.

200. See Twohey, Wisconsin, supra note 16.

201. M. Alex Johnson, Texas woman charged with offering 3-year-old son for adoption on Craigslist,

NBC NEWS (May 15, 2013), http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/15/18278988-texas-woman-

charged-with-offering-3-year-old-son-for-adoption-on-craigslist?lite [https://perma.cc/798V-ZFDB].


posted the $1,000.00 bail.202 Additionally, parents who re-home frequently

come away unscathed because they claim they are advertising for respite care

and not for a true adoption.203

Lastly, the CAPTA requires Texas to have provisions and procedures in

place to respond to child abuse and neglect reports.204 While CAPTA defines

child abuse and neglect, it is within the state’s discretion to determine which

actions fall within those definitions and therefore, qualify as child abuse,

neglect, abandonment, and exploitation.205 CAPTA’s abuse and neglect

definitions are broad enough that re-homing could fit within that meaning.206

However, Texas does not explicitly include re-homing as an action that

constitutes child abuse or neglect.207

C. If Texas Needs a Reason

The legal implications, or lack thereof, are not the only reason for

concern.208 Re-homing contradicts social and moral values, as well as the

way society views children.209 “Kids shouldn’t be in want ads like: ‘Our dog

just had puppies. Want one for free?’” said Ann Haralambie, an Arizona

child welfare and custody lawyer.210 Re-homing is comparable to selling a

baby and child abandonment, both of which are, and have always been,

recognized crimes.211

As the Reuters series discussed, children are frequently re-homed into

dangerous situations, increasing the risk of child exploitation.212 Even if the

new home is not an unfit or dangerous environment, society generally finds

it fundamentally inappropriate for a parent to relinquish parental

responsibility of an adopted child to another person through a power of

attorney.213 Unless, and until, the state takes action to protect children in

Texas from re-homing, this unregulated market and legal form of human

trafficking will flourish.214

Recently, the GAO released a report regarding re-homing, which

identified that select states have taken actions to address unregulated child

transfers.215 While the Department of State intends to revise international

202. Id.

203. See Twohey, Despite ‘grave danger’, supra note 127.

204. Testimony, supra note 136.

205. Id.

206. Montanari, Arkansas, supra note 140.

207. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 261.001(1), (4) (West 2014).


209. See id.

210. See id.

211. See id.

212. See Chang & Greenberg, supra note 73.

213. See id.

214. See Lillie, supra note 22.



adoption training requirements, the Department of Health and Human

Services is challenging the states to review state policies and directly address

re-homing to spearhead change.216 The report revealed that at least fifteen

states intend to address re-homing directly through legislation and other

means.217 The most common way states are answering this challenge is

through criminalizing re-homing and the actions that ultimately result in re-

homing.218 States are also revising their laws to restrict advertising children

for placement, which is broader than existing laws that address advertising

for adoption specifically.219 Some states enacted or revised their post-

adoption services.220 However, these efforts are time-consuming, and the

funding for these services is limited.221 Texas is not amongst the fifteen

leader states taking action in the movement to end re-homing.222

In fact, even when a Texas couple filed a complaint with the Texas

Attorney General about re-homing, the state failed to take any action.223

Thirteen-year-old Anna Barnes had already been re-homed once before when

her new parents in Texas began to regret adopting her.224 Gary and Lisa

Barnes turned to the re-homing bulletins online because they were told that

if they surrendered Anna to the state, then the state would deem them

unsuitable parents, and they would have to pay child support until she

reached the age of majority.225 Instead of legally dissolving the adoption, the

Barneses sent Anna to live with a couple in Illinois without conducting any

background checks, without any involvement of authorities, and without

notifying child welfare officials that they were transferring Anna across state

lines as the ICPC requires.226

Anna’s subsequent home was an unsuitable environment; there was dog

excrement on the floor, no bed for the young girl, and pornographic films in

the cabinet.227 Fortunately, the Barneses became aware of the danger of the

situation and returned to retrieve Anna.228 Thereafter, the Texas couple filed

a complaint with the Texas Attorney General regarding the Illinois couple.229

Despite warnings from not only Gary and Lisa Barnes, but also another

woman familiar with this specific Illinois couple, authorities and lawmakers

216. See id.

217. Id.

218. See id.

219. See id.

220. See id.

221. See id.

222. See id. at 30.


224. Id.

225. Id.

226. Id.

227. Id.

228. Id.

229. Id.


in Texas failed to take any action to protect other children from this couple

or the dangers of re-homing.230

At least one Texas lawmaker is speaking out against re-homing and

calling for the government to act.231 Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson,

who sponsors the federally proposed Protecting Adopted Children Act,

suggests that a plan of action, including criminal prosecution, will deter the

unregulated market and provide safety for children adopted internationally.232

“Law enforcement must be able to find and prosecute these offenses, and we

must put a stop to the underground market for children whose adoptive

parents have decided they no longer wanted them. Every child deserves to

be legally placed in a loving home,” Congresswoman Johnson said.233

VII. BOLSTERING LAWS IN TEXAS

A. Fixing a Broken System: A Non-Criminal Approach

Texas is not one of the fifteen states that have taken a proactive approach

to combat re-homing and ensure that every child is legally placed in a loving

home.234 In fact, state officials and leaders have turned a blind eye to citizens’

expressed concerns about an obviously appalling practice.235 One potential

solution is to provide extensive pre-adoption services to heal the underlying

issues that lead to re-homing, which include parents’ lack of information and

preparation.236 Although Texas imposes extensive pre-adoption education

for domestic adoptions, there is currently no state requirement for parents

adopting internationally to undergo any sort of preparation courses.237

In Texas, Child Protective Services (CPS) believes that the federally

required sixteen training hour for foster parents is insufficient; therefore, the

state requires additional training hours to qualify as a foster parent.238 CPS

requires thirty-five hours of training for potential foster parents, and the

230. Id.

231. Press Release, Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson Introduces Legislation to Combat the

Illegal Practice of Adoption “Re-homing,” CONGRESSWOMAN EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON REPRESENTING

THE 30TH DIST. OF TEX. (June 3, 2014), https://ebjohnson.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/

congresswoman-eddie-bernice-johnson-introduces-legislation-to-combat-the) [https://perma.cc/9VLX-

QUPL].

232. Id.

233. Id.

234. See Congressional Report, supra note 75.


236. See Congressional Report, supra note 75, at 16–20.

237. See Review of State Statutes: Regarding International Adoptions, ADOPTION.COM, http://laws.

adoption.com/statutes/review-of-state-statutes-regarding-international-adoptions-finalized-abroad.html

[https://perma.cc/5W8T-X2BB] (last visited Jan. 18, 2016); see also TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 162.023

(West 2014).

238. See Steps to Become a Foster/Adoptive Parent, TEX. ADOPTION RES. EXCH., https://www.

dfps.state.tx.us/Adoption_and_Foster_Care/Get_Started/steps.asp [https://perma.cc/BLM2-FANA] (last

visited Sept. 23, 2015).


training covers a range of topics, including child attachment, discipline,

behavior intervention, and sexual abuse.239 Further, Texas also requires that

verified foster homes complete an annual in-service training, which can range

from twenty to thirty hours of training per parent.240 Despite extensive

requirements for domestic adoption and foster care, the state of Texas does

not have any statutory provisions concerning international adoptions that

require initial parent education, training, or continuing education.241

Texas does not find it necessary to educate potential foreign-adoptive

families beyond the bare minimum that the federal government requires.242

Adoptive families in Texas may not have received sufficient pre-adoption

training in the ten hours the federal government requires for international

adoptions.243 This training does not equip parents with the correct training

and education to verify whether parents are properly prepared for their child’s

specific needs.244 As of May 2015, seven states in the GAO’s report now

require at least twenty-seven hours of educational training.245 Texas should

follow these states’ lead and increase the required educational training to at

least twenty-seven hours, as well as offer specialized class topics, such as

attachment, effects of abuse and neglect, and cultural sensitivity.246

Additionally, Texas could craft a plan to provide post-adoption services

similar to those suggested in the federal Protecting Adopted Children Act,

including support groups, emergency hotlines, counseling, social skills

training, and mental health services for both the parents and children.247 The

Texas Legislature should also consider the post-adoption services outlined in

Arkansas’s comprehensive law, which changes the child welfare programs to

improve the availability of post-adoption services to families to prevent

disrupted adoptions.248 Providing Texas parents with a list of available

services will make post-adoptive support accessible.249 If lawmakers

encourage child welfare programs to connect with adoptive parents, provide

information on the repercussions of re-homing, and make support services

available, then parents would be less likely to reach the point of desperation

that leads them to re-home.250 However, these efforts are time-consuming

and expensive.251 Texas could spend up to thousands of dollars per month

239. See id.

240. See id.

241. See ADOPTION.COM, supra note 237; see also FAM. § 162.023 (explaining Texas adoption

requirements).

242. See TEXAS ADOPTION RESOURCE EXCHANGE, supra note 238.

243. See Congressional Report, supra note 75, at 17–18.

244. See id.

245. See id.

246. See id. at 17–18.

247. See CONGRESSMAN JIM LANGEVIN, supra note 104.

248. See Congressional Report, supra note 75, at 35.

249. See id.

250. See id. at 45.

251. See id.


per child to provide support services, and these services would likely receive

very little funding.252 Therefore, this would not serve as the most efficient

and effective solution.253

B. Fixing a Broken System: A Criminal Approach

A state law that prohibits and criminalizes re-homing is the most

effective way to fix this serious legal pitfall.254 Absent any federal legislation

criminalizing re-homing, it is essential that Texas and other states take the

lead to show that children’s issues are a top priority for lawmakers.255 Thus,

Texas should enact a state law that remedies current legal pitfalls and

effectively criminalizes the unauthorized placement of children.256 Not only

is criminalizing the practice the most effective way to protect innocent

children, but it also sends a very clear message to parents that re-homing is

not the answer when they encounter trying situations.257 Such a criminal

statute would read as follows:

V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 20B.01

§ 20B.01. Definitions

In this chapter:

(1) “Child” is a person under 18 years

of age.258

(2) “Re-homing” means to transfer,

recruit, harbor, transport, provide,

solicit, or obtain a child through

electronic means or otherwise with the

intent to place a child in the physical

custody of a non-relative.259

V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 20B.02

§ 20B.02. Re-homing of Persons

(A) A person commits the offense of

re-homing a child if the person intentionally or

knowingly:

(1) Takes any action to facilitate a transaction

252. See id. at 23.

253. See id.

254. See Johnathan James Nobile, Adoptions Gone Awry: Enhancing Adoption Outcomes Through

Post Adoption Services and Federal and State Laws Imposing Criminal Sanctions for Private Internet

Rehoming, 53 FAM. CT. REV. 474, 481 (2015).


256. See Nobile, supra note 254.


258. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 20A.01(1) (West 2014).

259. See LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 14:46.4 (A)(1) (West 2014).


by which a parent, individual, or entity charged

with custody of a child seeks to divest

themselves of permanent parental

responsibility through placing a child in the

physical custody of a non-relative without

court approval, whether or not for value, except

as otherwise provided in Subsection B.260

(B) Re-homing does not apply to:

(1) A parent who places a child with a relative,

the Texas Department of Family and Protective

Services, or an attorney licensed by the state;261

(2) Placement of the child by the Texas

Department of Family and Protective Services

or an attorney licensed by the state;262

(3) Temporary placement of a child for a short

period of time if:

i. the parent specified an intent and

time for return;263 and

ii. if the placement is due to military

service, medical treatment,

incarceration, or incapacity of said

parent;264

(4) Placement of a child according to the

Interstate Compact on the Placement of

Children;265 or

(5) Relinquishment of a child under the

voluntary delivery law according to Tex. Fam.

Code § 262.302.266

(C) Except as otherwise provided by subsection B, an

offense under this section is a felony of the second

degree.267

First and foremost, this proposed legislation must forbid parents from

transferring custody of an adopted child to a non-relative without court

approval.268 However, it is necessary that the definition of re-homing is broad

and all encompassing because the parties involved in the practice extend far

260. Id.

261. ARK. CODE ANN. § 5-27-211(c)(1) (West 2014).

262. Id. § 5-27-211(c)(2).

263. Id. § 5-27-211(c)(3).

264. Id.

265. Id. § 5-27-211(c)(4); FAM. § 162.102.

266. § 5-27-211(c)(5); FAM. § 262.301.

267. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 20A.02(b) (West 2015).

268. See supra Section V.C.


beyond just the child’s parents.269 Amongst the participants are unlicensed

individuals, known as middlemen, who facilitate and introduce desperate

parents to interested parties to care for their child.270

One woman who served as a middleman admits now that she was not

running background checks and that “[she did not] have any way of knowing

who these people were.”271 As this is an extensive, multiparty network, any

state law must be comprehensive to deter involvement at every level.272

Texas should borrow from Arkansas and define the re-homing transaction as

transferring, recruiting, harboring, transporting, providing, soliciting, or

obtaining a minor for placement.273 This definition is thorough and

comprehensive in an effort to address all roles in a re-homing transaction.274

To provide clarity, Texas lawmakers should explicitly outline actions

that do not constitute re-homing, as Louisiana did.275 Such a qualifier would

allow parents to place their child with relatives, relinquish their child under

the safe haven law, or place their child temporarily in another home due to

circumstances like military service or medial treatments without the fear of

criminal penalties.276 It is critical that the proposed legislation correlate with

Texas Family Code § 262.301, also known as the Safe Haven or Baby Moses

Law.277 The Baby Moses Law allows parents to relinquish their newborn in

a safe place, generally hospitals, firehouses, and police stations, without any

questions asked.278 Safe Haven laws allow a parent to remain anonymous

and protected from criminal liability.279 Failure to provide an exception in

the re-homing legislation specifically for Safe Haven laws will cause parents

to avoid this legal option out of fear of criminal repercussions, and it may

defeat the entire purpose of Safe Haven laws, which is to prevent

abandonment of, and harm to, infants.280 Additionally, this portion of the

statute would provide protection to licensed attorneys, adoption agencies, and

the Department of Children and Family Services, who may legally place a

child in another home.281

269. See Megan Twohey, With Blind Trust and Good Intentions, Amateurs Broker Children Online,

REUTERS (Sept. 10, 2013), http://www.reuters.com/investigates/adoption/#article/part3 [https://perma.cc/

S3VN-5UR7].

270. See id.

271. See id.

272. See supra Section V.C.2.





277. Safe Haven or Baby Moses Law, TEX. DEP’T OF FAMILY & PROTECTIVE SERVS.,

https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Child_Protection/Keep_Children_Safe/baby_moses.asp [https://perma.cc/

4FYY-DKFF] (last visited Feb. 4, 2016).

278. Id.

279. Infant Safe Haven Laws, CHILD WELFARE INFO. GATEWAY 1, 4 https://www.child welfare.gov

/pubPDFs/safehaven.pdf [https://perma.cc/X3ZC-72RT] (last visited Feb. 4, 2016).

280. See id.



Lastly, it is imperative that the criminal penalties reflect the severity of

this practice and that the violators are punished to the full extent of the law.282

To protect our children, Texas must follow the examples of Arkansas,

Maryland, and North Carolina and classify re-homing as a felony offense.283

If Texas classifies re-homing as merely a misdemeanor offense, an individual

who shoplifts an iPhone will likely face harsher criminal penalties than an

individual who trades a child online.284

Re-homing is essentially a legal form of human trafficking, and in

Texas, human trafficking is at the very least a second-degree felony.285 An

individual who commits a second-degree felony faces anywhere from two to

twenty years in jail, as well as the possibility of a fine up to $10,000.286 This

is a more appropriate punishment than the one day in jail a Houston mother

served after she used the Internet to advertise her biological son for

adoption.287 This proposed state statute should classify re-homing as a

second-degree felony for first time offenders in order for the criminal

penalties to reflect the severity of this practice.288

VIII. CONCLUSION

Currently, Texas’ laws make it easier to transfer a child to a complete

stranger than it is to purchase a car.289 The government’s inaction is

deplorable, and our state and nation are failing to protect innocent children

from private entrepreneurs who transfer child custody for personal gain.290

Re-homing is an easy way for parents to circumvent the legal system and rid

themselves of a child they now consider a burden.291 Through only a quick

Google search and a few clicks on the keyboard, Texas parents can trade their

child like a baseball card.292

This unregulated market has left children without a legal guardian, and

some children will face deportation as wards of the state.293 As soon as the

parents grant a power of attorney, their child practically vanishes without a


283. See supra Section V.C.

284. See Erin G. Bradley, ‘Re-homing’ Bill Does Not Go Far Enough To Protect Adopted Children,

BOS. GLOBE (Nov. 17, 2015), https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/letters/2015/11/17/homing-bill-

does-not-far-enough-protect-adopted-children/kNwm3pujH8MXi8aNOLOttO/story.html [https://perma.

cc/9DLG-A785].

285. See Lillie, supra note 22.

286. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.33 (West 2014).

287. Johnson, supra note 201.


289. See Wetzstein, Adoptee Decry, supra note 20.

290. See Riben, supra note 21.

291. See supra Section I.C.

292. See supra Section I.C.

293. See supra Section II.B.


trace.294 These easy, fill-in-the-blank forms are not intended to act as a

substitute for long-term parental care, nor does it relieve parents of their legal

responsibility to care for their child.295

It is unlikely that the federal government will put a stop to re-homing

because children’s issues are not important to policymakers.296 Furthermore,

the regulations that are in place through the ICPC are rarely adhered to or

enforced.297 In the absence of successful federal legislation, policymakers at

the state level are drafting and enacting laws to specifically prohibit

re-homing.298 However, Texas has turned a blind eye to this repugnant

practice happening within the state’s borders.299

Absent any federal legislation criminalizing re-homing, it is essential

that Texas takes action to show that children are a top priority.300 Thus, Texas

should enact a state law that remedies current legal pitfalls and effectively

criminalizes re-homing, which is essentially a legal form of human

trafficking.301 It is time that parents, lawmakers, and society recognizes

adoption for what it is: “a permanent, lifelong commitment to a child.”302



296. See supra Section V.B.

297. See supra Section V.A.

298. See supra Section V.A.

299. See supra Part VI.

300. See supra Section VII.B.


302. See Frequently Asked Questions About Adoption, TEX. ADOPTION RES. EXCH., http://www.

dfps.state.tx.us/adoption_and_foster_care/about_tare/faq/default.asp#outofstate [https://perma.cc/WSD7

-FCGF] (last visited Sept. 23, 2015).

A PROACTIVE APPROACH TO CURB RE-HOMING IN TEXAS ...

Documents

Transcript of A PROACTIVE APPROACH TO CURB RE-HOMING IN TEXAS ...